Men did not stop wearing high heels, since the 18th century.

[Histiletto]

An assumption promoted by recorded social history that men quit wearing high heels, should be re-considered, if not flat out charged with deception by implying that men lost or ceased to desire or have the taste for wearing high heeled footwear. From the attitudes encouraged through the Age of the Enlightenment, society also asserted that real men were beings disciplined in logic and practicality, while women were more aesthetically and frivolously inclined. How is it that men can completely loose their desire or taste to choosing varieties of peacock fashions to being satisfied in getting limited to minimally dull and drab selections in designs and colors as society determined it so?

[Shyheels]

It was what fashion historians call the Great Male Renunciation, when men forswore bright raiments in favour of a more sober look in keeping with the Age of Enlightenment. The idea was to appear serious, sober, refined, not given to frivolity. It is a look that, depending how you view iit, men have not wanted to give up or society has not wanted men to give up. Probably both.

[Chorlini]

Methinks it was the nobility who did the peacocking, to distinguish itself from the peasants of the lower classes and to impress them and the other nobles with their wealth. So when power switched to the bourgeoisie and middle classes fashion probably changed with them. After all, with nobles losing their heads in revolutionary France, who would want to dress up as a noble of the Ancienne Regime? When the monarchy was restored in France after the exile of Napoleon, Louis XVIII did still dress up like an 18th century peacock monarch, as if he was still trying to restore the Ancienne Regime. But his regime proved unpopular and his successors quickly switched to the more drab fashions of the classes that now really mattered. 

And now we have the reverse trend where the old nobility that has survived probably dresses more conservative then the nouveau riche of big business and celebrities.

[Histiletto]

I have a hard time understanding the mindset that men of any status or means, since the 18th century, could only develop the confined aesthetic ability to like and/or want to wear only the attire that fits within the societal standards. Of course, the men that didn't comply with the stereotyping faced public humiliation, ridicule, or imprisonment of sorts, not to mention religious sanctions. So, such detailed evidences as to the thoughts and actions of real men, became muffled and distorted until it gave way to forming the ideals of today's manhood. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Histiletto

[Shyheels]

Eh?

It became fashionable in the Age of Enlightenment for men to look sober and studious, more egalitarian (even if they really weren't at heart) and so they adopted muted earth tones and a more conservative look, like country squires. Sobriety was in, frivolity was out. Simple as that. They were moving with the times. And this sea change began taking place several decades ahead of the French Revolution 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Shyheels

[Histiletto]

Many good reformations and social upgrades came out of the Age of Enlightenment, but the differences between men and women were used to counter the rising status of women from only being considered the property of men to being their companions and having an increased importance or sway in community affairs. Since men, at that time, usually worked long hours each day in the factories, women had to also be the family's financial manager. This meant women had more influence into what and how many businesses marketed products and services. Mean while, men were more concerned about getting ready for the next days work schedule, that they kind of withdrew from the social scene, which gave others the idea that men had no time for social activities and only wanted the things necessary to do their job. This attitude led to the idea that men only wanted rational and practical things for living. Since then, the working conditions have greatly improved to where men have more leisure time to enjoy living socially, but the mold of being practical became a standard stereotyping that keeps men limited in their choices of apparel. The accompanying attitude that seems to originate from homophobic perceptions in which men would become femininely oriented should they reveal any tendency to wear things considered irrational, have come to dominate the social environment. The idea of guys choosing to wear cowl neck shirts, fitted jeans, and high heels shouldn't even be a bleep on the fashion meter, not to mention usual, common, and frequent occurrences. Yes, guys are just as interested in wearing attractive apparel that they find tasteful and fits their appearance. Just because others don't have the same taste doesn't give them the right to deny or forbid such appearances. Take a look at this from your perspective should someone try to prevent you from wearing your favorite pair of jeans, because they don't want you to wear them. Apparel is meant to be chosen by those who desire to include its accent for their outfit, not the other way round where an attiring item has already had its wearer chosen for it.

[Shyheels]

No. The men who wore heels were not the chaps who toiled in factories. They were not even the chaps who owned factories. They were aristocrats, gentlemen in the fullest 18th definition of the term. They had ample time for leisure, philosophical meditations and the pursuit of science and knowledge. This they did. It became fashionable to do so - to be one of the enlightened. In such a social climate disporting yourself like a peacock at court was seen as frivolous and unmanly - bright colours and gaiety belonged to the "gentler sex" who were typically seen as ineducable.  Men thought of themselves as intelligent, sober, studious and practical and their clothing reflected this - as it still does today.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Shyheels

[robbiehhw]

The term "well healed" was meant to distinguish those that were wealthy enough to own more frivolous footwear, that would never have survived slogging through the mud to feed the pigs etc. 

Having said that there were still some fairly flamboyant men's wear even into the 20th century. Top hats, coats with tails, white tie wear, walking sticks. The colors were fairly subdued for the most part but not always. It was very fashionable to wear a white straw "boater" hat well into the century and that often had a nicely colored band. Summer wear for men could include things like white jackets

The working class and the poor class have always had challenges in dressing to fashion until clothes became more mass produced and cheaper. Today clothes as a percentage of expenditures is lower than ever, when things like food and housing has continued to climb.

[Shyheels]

Top hats and tails were and are considered formal wear, and are neither colourful nor flamboyant - except perhaps when viewed nostalgically in movies like The Great Gatsby. 

Panama hats - spring and summer wear for gentlemen back in the day - traditionally have black bands. And wearing straw hats was something that was also rigorously controlled by convention. One risked having one's hat taken off and stomped on if one had the temerity to wear it after the 15th of September which was when probity and social convention decreed straw should be abandoned for the year. 

Menswear has always been rigorously governed by convention. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Shyheels

[Thighbootguy]

16 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Menswear has always been rigorously governed by convention. 

Really makes you appreciate hhplace.

[Shyheels]

3 minutes ago, Thighbootguy said:

Really makes you appreciate hhplace.

Yes, but I wish it was more of a genuine fashion forum

[Histiletto]

The male renunciation may have been a noted change in social attitude, but essentially it was more of a step towards or an act of social enslavement - for it further tries to limit our freedom as individuals to make personal choices as to how we can apply our natural desires for appareling items to be used as modems of expression. Some of the results of this limiting movement are the many activities and practices of social defiance and/or alternative lifestyles that have become social segments that cater to those of similar perspectives. Even our beloved HHP helps to fill a need for offering some refuge in having the desire to wear the high heels we choose, because of this socially promoted renunciation. It is known that only those of privilege and/or affluency in the centuries before the nineteenth were able to indulge their taste for wearing heels, but that doesn't mean those of lesser status didn't have a taste for wearing them. That's probably why the wearing of high heels had to be ruled or made unavailable to the lower influential classes of citizens.       

Edited June 6, 2017 by Histiletto

[Shyheels]

There has always been lots of rules laid out by the privileged classes setting out what lesser mortals could and could not wear. The colour purple, for example, was set aside for royalty since ancient times. It isn't - or wasn't - just heels. I doubt very much the lower status types ever gave much thought to wearing heels per se - instead, they would have focussed on the overall lifestyle and privilege enjoyed by their 'betters'. And in the grand scheme of things monumental country houses, horse drawn coaches with glass windows, teams of liveried footmen and the overall splendour of their silks and brocades would have been what caught the eye. Not the detail of a heel so much.   

Edited June 7, 2017 by Shyheels

[Histiletto]

The wearing of heels is more of a matter of taste. It is anybody's guess as to why or how such tastes initialize and not every person experiences this desire. Even when the social expectation and dictation highly encourages or forces people to wear them, doesn't mean those people had or got the taste for wearing heels. In fact, the act of forcing people to do things often leads to a rejection or hatred of that which is perceived as being forced. So, this understanding could be applied through out the existence/history of mankind as social attitudes and standards meandered under the knowledge/myths/superstitions, class distinctions, roles, and technologies of the periods. 

[Shyheels]

Eh?

That went right past me...

Edited October 24, 2017 by Shyheels